Political Memes

5232 readers

2333 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civil

Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformation

Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memes

Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotion

Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

Rooki@lemmy.world

automodbeta@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

rjc@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

528

Journalism (lemmy.world)

submitted 4 months ago by Linkerbaan@lemmy.world to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world

152 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

My point is that by deciding that Hamas people with guns can’t be “soldiers,” but IDF people with guns can, the NYT is giving a subtle stamp of legitimacy to the IDF.

Let me put it this way - it was Nazi soldiers which rampaged across Europe during WW2.

Soldier is not a designation of morality or legitimacy. It is a designation of association - namely, association with a state's military apparatus. Excluding paramilitaries, which are generally (though not always) referred to with other terms.

If we’re calling Hamas “militants” out of pure desire for accuracy, can we start calling people who work for the IDF who blow up universities and snipe doctors “terrorists”? And mount a factual defense of that term, based on their conduct in the “war”? Because I think I could make a pretty good argument for why that term applies to them more accurately than “soldiers” and “war” for what’s happening on the ground right now.

The category of 'state terrorism' is contentious, I wouldn't reasonably expect it to be used in a reputable news source at this point in time (though I would be thrilled if it was used in one). But I agree that the description is absolutely apt.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 4 points 4 months ago

Soldier is not a designation of morality or legitimacy. It is a designation of association - namely, association with a state's military apparatus. Excluding paramilitaries, which are generally (though not always) referred to with other terms.

Yeah, I get that. My point is that this is part of a consistent pattern where the NYT uses one set of words for the "good guys" and a different set of words for the "bad guys," as part of a (fairly successful) effort to get their readers to look at the conflict within their chosen parameters (which diverge quite a bit from the reality).

The category of 'state terrorism' is contentious, I wouldn't reasonably expect it to be used in a reputable news source at this point in time

Yeah fully agreed. I don't think anyone should be obligated to describe Israel as a terrorist state in their news coverage. Just saying that, if the pro-Israel writers want to be super specific about reporting every action with the exactly correct chosen words, then okay sure I think it becomes fair to start exploring the exactly correct words that actually do describe better what's really going on.